<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I have the same reaction now that I had back when the Trademark
Office first proposed this "insufficient information fee". My
reaction is that when the client asks "what will it cost?" the
only choice is to include this fee in the cost. And then in the
(seemingly unlikely to happen very often) case where this fee does
not get charged, this can count as unexpected savings to the
client.<br>
</p>
<p>It is especially annoying that the fee is "per class" given that
many of the triggers for imposing the fee are merely tied to the
mark itself and not to the goods or services.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/15/2024 11:09 AM, Tim Ackermann
via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGrvT1Zc-iULWn-jpfQOjTPAEiKzk_4yS5qbci6CCOQZrgZMuQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Oh boy. These three are going to be 'fun' w/r/t the *per
class* $100 insufficient information fee. </div>
<blockquote>
<div>\u2022 If the mark includes color, a statement naming the
color(s) and describing
where the color(s) appears on the mark, and a claim that the
color(s) is a
feature of the mark; </div>
<div>\u2022 If the mark is not in standard characters, a
description of the mark; </div>
<div>\u2022 If the mark includes non-English wording, an English
translation of that
wording; </div>
</blockquote>
<div> The Office appears to be taking the position that getting
the color statement or description of the mark "wrong" -- per
the Examining Attorney's subjective opinion -- subjects
Applicant to the $100 <u>per-class</u> fee. The asserted
'remedy' is that Applicant can complain that the Office is not
being consistent. Which, of course, is not actually the
problem at hand. The non-standard text marks are, in general,
different, and will have different descriptions. So
consistency is not the issue -- it's imposing unpredictable
fees based on a difference of opinion. [Comment 36 below.]</div>
<div> And the Office does take the position that Applicant must
search for, and provide, any possible (if remote / random /
irrelevant) non-English meaning. This applies even if it's a
language that no one in the process has ever heard of. Failing
that -- the $100/class fee applies. [Comment 40 below]</div>
<div> How many translations might there be? Who knows! Take the
word 'casette' -- it translates from Italian as "little
houses" -- which is the one you get if you tell Google
Translate "detect language. Same for Catalan. But if you
happen to know it's also a word in Spanish, it's "cassette"
(same for many languages). Or maybe if you search Romanian,
it's "tapes." Or in Breton & Dari, it's "box." </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div> Comment 36: Commenters, including the SBA, expressed
concern regarding the
difficulty of anticipating whether the insufficient
information fee [e.g. $100/class] will apply for an
applicant, given that many of the requirements are
subjective to the examining attorney\u2019s
opinions and discretion, rather than objective factual
standards. Commenters included
color claim, description of a mark, identification of form
of applicant, and translation of a
mark as examples of subjective determinations where a fee
could be imposed later in
examination. Commenters suggested these questions will lead
to accounting disputes,
thus inhibiting the quality and timeliness of prosecution
progress. </div>
<div> Response: The USPTO acknowledges the commenters\u2019
concerns and offers assurance
that the agency strives to ensure consistent examination. An
applicant may request that
the USPTO review situations where, in their opinion, the
agency has acted inconsistently
in its treatment of their pending application(s) or recent
registration(s). Applicants also
may submit a request for review when a substantive or
procedural issue has been
addressed in a significantly different manner in different
cases, subject to requirements
on the Consistency Initiative page on the USPTO website at
<a
href="https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/consistencyinitiative"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-updates-and-announcements/consistencyinitiative</a>.
If the applicant believes that the agency incorrectly
imposed an insufficient
information fee and has discussed the issue with the
examining attorney, they may also
contact the managing or senior attorney in the examining
attorney\u2019s law office </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Comment 40: One commenter suggested that the USPTO
consider whether the
insufficient information fee is appropriate in instances
where an applicant makes a good faith effort to supply
required information, such as when they have no knowledge of
a
term\u2019s non-English meaning.</div>
<div> Response: Requiring the fee is appropriate in the
situation described in the comment
because § 2.32(a)(9) requires an applicant to research a
mark that is comprised of or
includes non-English wording to determine whether there is a
transliteration or
translation of the wording. If there is, and the applicant
omits the translation or
transliteration, the examining attorney will issue an Office
action requiring the
insufficient information surcharge and submission of the
translation and/or transliteration,
as appropriate. If the initial application includes a
translation or transliteration, the
surcharge will not apply for later amendment of the
translation or transliteration. The
surcharge will apply if the translation or transliteration
comprises or contains
inappropriate material. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Tim Ackermann</div>
<div>The Ackermann Law Firm</div>
<p><span>E: <a
href="mailto:tim@ackermannlaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">tim@ackermannlaw.com</a></span><br>
<span>P: 817.305.0690</span><br>
<span>F: 214.453.0810</span><br>
<span>W: <a href="http://ackermannlaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ackermannlaw.com</a></span><br>
<span>O: 1701 W. Northwest Hwy. Ste. 100</span><br>
<span> Grapevine TX 76051</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at
11:12\u202fAM Thilo C. Agthe via E-trademarks <<a
href="mailto:e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div class="msg-1224292324580475316">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_1390647857535579780WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Available here: <a
href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-26644.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-26644.pdf</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Enjoy! ;-)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>WUERSCH
</span><span>&</span><span> GERING</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal">
<span>Thilo C. Agthe, Partner</span><span lang="DE-CH"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Wuersch & Gering LLP |
100 Wall Street, 10th Fl. | New York, NY 10005
<br>
212-509-4714 (direct) | 212-509-5050 (firm) <br>
</span><span><a href="mailto:thilo.agthe@wg-law.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span>thilo.agthe@wg-law.com</span></a></span><span>
| <a
href="https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.wg-law.com&c=E,1,CWoeRVQhtGs121LAVIh7zU1-dx3iVrghVXYSNSKabu2gys3XF-T4ZebqmeopXQ1xZCNj4u5_DxhXvfueoeFMVmprC0L4rGxGcSgyirWqdfa_AwkM&typo=1&ancr_add=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
<span>www.wg-law.com</span></a></span><span><br>
</span><span> </span><span>
<br>
</span><span>This message and any attachments hereto
contain confidential information and information
which may be subject to the attorney-client
privilege. It is intended for the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose
this communication to others; also please notify the
sender by replying to this message, and then delete
it from your system.
</span><span lang="DE">Thank you.</span><span
lang="DE-CH"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE"> </span><span
lang="DE-CH"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE">Diese Nachricht und
etwaige Anhänge enthalten vertrauliche Informationen
und Daten, die Gegenstand des Anwaltsgeheimnisses
sein können. Sie ist nur für die oben genannte
natürliche oder juristische Person gedacht. Sollten
Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Empfänger sein, bitten
wir Sie die Nachricht nicht zu lesen, zu kopieren,
oder an andere weiterzugeben. Bitte informieren Sie
den Absender durch Beantwortung dieser Nachricht,
und löschen Sie die Nachricht aus Ihrem System.
</span><span>Danke.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>P</span><span>
</span><span>Please consider the environment before
printing this e-mail!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
E-trademarks mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a
href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>